Skip to comments.Barack Obama Birth Certificate is not real.
Posted on 11/06/2008 1:35:14 PM PST by Demosthenes
Forgive me for rehashing this if anybody is tired of reading it, but I finally did all of the research for myself, and have some info you may not have seen.
Barack Obama has never shown his birth certificate. Allow me to explain. A "certification" of live birth is a copy document, accessible by the public, or government agencies, and usually a relatively legally acceptable document in most scenarios. You can use it at the DMV, or to get a passport.
A "Certificate" of live birth is the actual document itself, created on the day/moment of the event, and it is a hospital-maintained record in most cases, accessible only by immediate family and the person for whom it was issued.
Here is what Barack Obama's website put out initially:
This image is a fraud, plain and simple. There is no state seal, no Registrar's signature, and only a vague June 2007 stamp on the reverse side. Both the signature and seal are easily visible in any photocopy, and are deliberately so. The artifacts surrounding the text are clear photoshop work. Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, probably some overzealous aide generated it from a viewing of the regular document.
This is an image from Factcheck.org of what the website put out, excpet here we have an actual photograph, in high resolution, proving the website document a forgery. Notice, this document has the necessary seals and signatures:
This is, at least, a real document from the State Records office. It is still not an actual copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. The State seal and signature on this document certify to all viewers that this document was created by an actual State Agency, is not a forgery, and that the State of Hawaii accept it as a legal and valid document.
Remember, this is simply a legal substitute for the real birth certificate.
Both of these were offered up as "Birth Cretificates" when they are in fact legally-acceptable substitutes for the real thing. In most cases, this is not a big deal. However, in the case of a US President, I believe they are a VERY big deal.
An actual Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii, through the 1960s, looks like this:
And the critical bit of information it discloses is the location of Birth.
They are very specific about that, and there are boxes for the location, be it hospital, home, foreign country or otherwise.
This is the document that has been sealed by the Governor of Hawaii in 2008, in a special action that affected only Obama's Birth Certificate.
How very convenient.
Why has special action bee taken to prevent this document from being seen?
Because, I suspect, there is information on it which would directly contradict public statements about his birth and begin unraveling a number of lies told to the public about his true origin, and raise serious questions about his eligibility.
His sister, and Grandmother in Kenya have both spoken publicly, and made statements about his locale of birth that contradict his own statements.
Why hide it, Mr. Obama?
What reason on earth would you have for asking the Governor of Hawaii to hide this document on your behalf?
No, we need to undermine the liberals and this Faux Obama.
He needs to prove he is a natural born citizen.
Newbie doesn’t want recounts or voter fraud investigated either. I think newbie needs to head back to his own forum.
I agre that it has ramifications. But I also think that U.S. Constitution, Amendment 20, Section 3 answers it.
Bump for later
I’m certainly tired of trolls. The new signups have driven me nuts tonight. You can tell the trolls as logic is beyond them. You can debate a FReeper.(Talking to 2 real ones now) A lib talks in circles. I quoted ones posts back to them and they said I must have a dysfunctional family. It made no sense.
Bump ya back....It’s getting late here.
Most libs are products of public school whose teachers graduated in the bottom half of public schools.....
Good evening. Ping me to anything else you find.
It’d fall to McCain...if he was de-certified....they would have NO choice.
Again, you fail to grasp the law and the concept of “original intent”.
I you bothered to read my previous posts with care, I said that I thought that Biden could make a case for his eligibility and his subsequent election.
The 20th Amendment provides that the Vice President Elect shall act as the caretaker President until a new President qualifies.
Presumptively, and based on “original intent”, Obama would be disqualified based on Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.
Presumptively, and based on “original intent” ALL of his popular votes would necessarily be null and void since Obama did NOT participate in the election.
The election would then be based on the remaining candidates in the pool. All of McCain’s electors would then be seated since he had the highest number of qualified votes in each state.
I get the feeling that you DON’T want to accept this premise - for reasons, I know not why.
I agree, this WHOLE situation sucks. I can accept Obama, but ONLY if he won fair and square. If not - he needs to go.
Think of it as an ineligible athlete winning a Gold Medal at the Olympics (like underage Chinese gymnasts?). If proved ineligible, they don’t keep their medal simply because the judges (in our case, the voters) gave him or her the highest score.
Libtards! I'm sick of them too. We should get rid of them before they go undercover to await the next election.
Sorry, but I disagree. Section 3 states if the President-elect is unable to fullfill his term the Vice-President elect would take over. The candidate doesn’t become the President-elect until after the Electors have voted.
I think Article 2 is more appropriate:
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
We’re just as far in the dark as you
I know you didn’t direct your question to me, but this is the crux of the problem. Phil Berg, who is a Democrat in PA filed a suit against Obama and asked the court to compel him (Obama) to produce the original vault copy of his birth certificate. Instead of just showing the court the original or arranging for the original to be shown, Obama has hired a team of lawyers to stonewall this.
The theory is there is anecdotal evidence that Barack was actually borne in Kenya and therefore NOT an US Citizen.
I agree. And I’ll ping you. :-)
They might NOT be brought forward.
Several lawsuits are before the courts right now asking them to compel Obama to produce the BCs.
Obama is fighting it tooth and nail - based on plaintiff’s lack of standing in the courts.
However, one suit has already made it to SCOTUS and they have given him a deadline of 12/01/08 to respond as to why he should not produce.
If they rule against him - he will most likely have to produce.
If they rule for him - its over for the current suit, but there are others in the pipeline (this time with electors and 3rd party VP candidates as plaintiffs). They SHOULD have standing.
That section of the Constitution says that a President would be picked. I don't remember if it says how.
And I'm half asleep. I gotta go.
If you think its crap, get your useless arse off the thread so more intelligent people can proceed with action. "Enlightened" is an ignorant leftist cannard that means confused.
They’ll just come back. Like bad dreams. Boomerangs. Unpaid bills. lol
If you think its crap, get your useless arse off the thread so more intelligent people can proceed with action. "Enlightened" is an ignorant leftist cannard that means confused.
Are you sure about that? I thought Berg asked for an injunction to stop the counting of ballots. It was my understanding that Souter denied the injunction but set a date for something? I can’t find the Justices order, can you enlighten me?
DJ, thanks for a good discussion and your research into this. I have to get up in 4 hours so I’m shutting down for the night. If anything breaks on this, let me know.
We are in uncharted waters here. This is where SCOTUS needs to man up and take charge - it could be one of its finest hours.
Constitutional issues like these come along sparingly. I can only think of 7 in the last 60 years (Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon, Bush v. Gore, and now Berg v. Obama).
The Founding Fathers never envisioned this - honorable men did not do dishonorable things in their time.
In this case, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 is clear:
“No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President ...”
The Founding Fathers never envisioned this possible problem - honorable men did not do dishonorable things. They also knew each other pretty well and knew who had been born, when, and where (Chief Justice John Marshall swore in his second cousin, Thomas Jefferson - I assume he knew Jefferson's particulars).
They could not enumerate ALL possible scenarios in the Constitution, so they included Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 that empowered Congress to enact laws not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
A specific law was never enacted by Congress to verify office seeker's eligibility - and thats where we are now ...
SCOTUS has to look to the Constitution during these crises and determine the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
In this case, they CLEARLY DID NOT want a non natural-born citizen as President.
SCOTUS also needs to exercise common sense. Remember, one justice said, “I don't know what pornography is - but I know it when I see it.”
In this case, the facts are pretty clear - you must be a natural born citizen.
The issues to be decided are standing - who has it? I submit that, in this case, the United States has standing via the Constitution and that any citizen can bring it before SCOTUS.
There are also 14th Amendment Equal Protection issues, that the losing contestants were denied due process.
IMHO, SCOTUS should act for the United States and compel production of Obama’s birth certificate.
Assuming Obama is disqualified, The final question is remedy.
I suppose the fairest thing would be to order a new election with a new Democratic candidate, but that would in and of itself present problems. It would take time and cost a lot of money.
It would also likely necessitate Continuity Of Government, with Bush's term extended until the new election. Probably with the proviso that no new laws be enacted in the interim.
However, this scenario is IMPRACTICAL! The next scenario is the least complicated ...and this is where common sense (along with original intent)comes in again ...
It seems to me that, once disqualified, a candidate must be deemed NOT to have participated in the election. YES, 55+ million votes would be disenfranchised - they can go and bitch at Obama.
The original election would then be decided on the basis of the remaining qualified candidates. In this case, McCain would be POTUS.
The final problem would be Biden - would his election as VP be declared valid? I suspect so. Otherwise, his 14th Amendment rights would be denied. However, if his election was declared null and void as part of the Obama/Biden ticket, Palin would be VP.
Now, I know that there is the question of the 20th Amendment - would Biden serve as acting President for a while and how would the next qualified POTUS be chosen.
I think that SCOTUS would probably have skirt this issue and declare that the 20th did NOT apply in this extreme circumstance, due to the actions of an ineligible candidate.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents.
Berg wanted to stay the election until this is resolved - it was denied by Souter.
However, Obama NOW has until 12/01/08 to respond as to why the suit should NOT go forward.
The case is still in place at SCOTUS.
If you go to the SCOTUS web site and search for Berg - you will find it. You have to specify Supreme Court Docket Files, not the default Supreme Court Files.
I’m a long time lurker - newbie poster ... whats a bookmark, unless you bookmarked the web page?
and click on previous at the top. There are copies of the court materials there.
The date is Dec. to either produce the document or show why not. Berg has the opportunity to refute their reply.(This is the place where the lower court found Berg did not have standing. A step apparently expected in order for the lower judge not to have to rule and bringing the case to the SCOTUS) IMO the VP candidate that has filed should attach himself to the Berg case ASAP.
Bookmark, Bump, Bttt , even . are used to hold you spot so that you can find the post later if you click on your comments. It is a method of pinging yourself. I sometime place my own name in the “TO:” spot just so others don’t get pinged.
Welcome aboard, appreciate your input.
Do you have any insight to my post 231?
The 20th Amendment doesn't kick in until after December 15th, if not January 6th. There ISN'T a President-Elect OR Vice President-Elect UNTIL THEN.
Referring right now to either Obama/Biden as the "elect" is a misnomer. They are NOT the 'elect' until the ELECTORS CHOOSE THEM in December.
Should Obama be disqualified PRIOR to December 15th or Congress approves their decision on January 6th, it doesn't go to the 20th Amendment as there is NO President or VP-Elect until then.
I was under the thought that the originals were scanned for distribution. At least that what mine from 1965 look like - a scanned original.Yes, yours is clearly a copy of the original document. Apparently with the computerization of records, what they routinely send out now is this abbreviated "certification".
Face it, we have a Kenyan president. His family lives in huts and slaughtered livestock at his win. We’re officially 3rd world status now. He and his cronies will seize power with his “civilian security force” and behave just like every other African tribesman that gets elected and that is loot the treasury, tax anything productive and leave the country worse off.
I am not a lawyer.... but I have a good idea of what’s going to happen if he is found ineligible.
1. The Supreme Court will probably NOT overturn the election. Even if obama is NOT a naturalized citizen, they will probably find a legal loophole to use or just make a decision that is non-controlling. Example, in the Bush and Gore mess, the SC made a decision that only pertained to that case. In other words they said “hey, for the good of the country we will bend some laws and make the rationale etc. non-controlling”. This is likely what will happen, if by chance he is NOT a naturalized citizen.
But, does this mean we have to stop and give up? Hell no. We need to use everything we have to discredit the fraud. Even if this election is NOT overturned, the evidence will go far 2012..... And hey, maybe the SC does have enough balls to overturn a fraudulent election; if true.
The only ones it would matter to would be us on the right. The 65 million on the left will not care. If his COLB is revealed to be imprinted with the word "Kenya" as the place of birth, and he is ejected from the office, they will say it was "stolen" from him that whitey concocted this, that Republicans were responsible. There would be mass riots in all major cities. People would die. No, nobody is going to remove the first black man from office of president this side of heaven. The Republicans are spineless wimps and will not challenge it. Did you see them challenge it before the election? They certainly won't now. Did you see McCain bring it up as an issue? Absolutely not. Did you see the MSM send their myrmidons to Hawaii to investigate it? No they were to busy in Alaska checking out Todd Palin's driving record when he was 22. No, my FRiend, there is absolutely no way B.H. Obama is going to be denied the presidency at this point. Your only chance is 2012 and then you can vote him out if possible. And even then there may be an impossibility......
I have to take issue with your assessment. The case of Gore v Bush dealt with the interpretation of “hanging chads” and voter intent. It was a very “grey” area and a very narrow interpretation.
This on the other hand is a very clear issue. Either Barack Obama is qualified to hold the office of President or he isn’t.. There is no grey area. The Constitution is very clear on who may hold the office, it is NOT open to interpretation.
As for the timeliness of the case, this has been in the courts (Federal) for months. The Obama campaign dragged their feet by filing motions to dismiss, and then filing a motion to deny standing to Berg as he was not an “injured party.” There were also multiple defendants: The FEC; the Democratic Party; and Barrack Obama. Each entity filed answers to the brief, filed for motions to dismiss and basically stalled the case.
The Judge (wisely) passed this on ruling that although Berg had “no Standing” he didn’t rule on the merits of the case letting Berg take it directly to the SCOTUS.
I surmise this was the strategy of the Dems all along, stall the case until after the election, then there would be such a public uproar that the Supremes wouldn’t rule to save the Republic. In Souters stay on the injuncion, he again didn’t rule on the merits of the case, simply ruled the election could go forth and the case could be decided at a later date.
There is a “remedy” in the language of the Constitution that provides for the replacement of the President should it be determined he’s not eligible to serve. I think Souter thought that the remedy would safe-guard the electoral process to the point there would be no immediate crisis that would require a stay on the election.
The long and the short of it is quite simple. If Barack is not a “natural-born” citizen of the United States, he is not qualified to hold the office.
The biggest issue is who has standing? I submit that individually and collectively, the citizens of the United States have standing. It is conferred in the first three words of the Preamble of the Constitution, “We the people...” The entire concept of our Republic is predicated on the people’s “consent to be governed” We did not sign over our rights to a governmental body. We ELECT our leaders on a regular basis to self-govern. There is a process for election and there is also a process for removal of ANY elected official. The only one’s not directly elected are the Judiciary and this was designed to allow the Judiciary to make decisions independant of outside influence.
I think it is a very simple matter. A lawsuit has been filed questioning the ability of a person to hold the office of President because he doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements for the job. In order to satisfy those requiremehnts, he only has to produce a birth certificate that states he is a “natural-born” citizen of the US. There are no legal hoops he has to go through, no long arguments, no parsing of the intent and meaning of the Constitution. It is simple and black and white. He either IS eligible or he Isn’t.
If the SCOTUS allows something as simple as this to pass, there would be total anarchy in the Country. How can anyone be expected to obey the law when something this simple is cast aside.
The SCOTUS must uphold the constitution! Popularity, party politics, personal preference may NOT enter in. If the evidence is there that he is not qualified, he must be removed. IMO. How they determine his replacement will determine whether we have civil war. The GOP has put their faith in “rule of law”.
It is a Constitutional mess that may have to be solved by the Scotus. I pray that they take this seriously. If he is Kenyan born, and he denounced citizenship to get an Indonesian passport, and he is sworn in, it would set a terrible precedent.
I agree with you... but. I am thinking in pragmatic terms. We HAVE to fight for this... but still, never underestimate the BS artistry of the liberal justices.
You are correct about the “faithless electors” issue, however, If the electors were chosen based on a fraud, where does that leave us? Frankly, I hope he is qualified to serve just to resolve this issue, but the longer this is being played out in the courts it is starting to sound like what the definition of “is” is.
Assuming Obama is ineligible to hold the office, and picking up from where we were last night on Biden’s situation, could the electors cast their vote for Biden directly? In reality it would be the way out of this mess.
I can assume Biden would then pick Hillary as his VP and the Dem base would be placated. The Conservatives would go crazy, but it IS a Constitutional remedy. The minority community would be disenfranchised, but it was done by one of their own and the only property in jeopardy would be a mansion on the south side of Chicago.
What say you?